Design Language

Apple has long been celebrated for its commitment to visual design, but this focus sometimes comes at the cost of user experience. The Magic Mouse is a clear example: while its sleek appearance aligns with Apple’s aesthetic values, its ergonomic flaws highlight a design that prioritizes form over function. A more user-friendly design could address these issues, but such changes would likely conflict with Apple's design philosophy, which often values visual appeal above all else.

In fact, this challenge extends beyond Apple, specifically impacting design systems—structured frameworks that standardize components and properties across various use cases—that overtime have become ubiquitous. While these systems provide a reliable foundation for designers and developers, they can also stifle creativity. The strict guidelines meant to ensure consistency and accessibility often leave little room for new ideas, leading to interfaces that feel generic, impersonal, and indistinguishable from one another.

Google’s Material Design also suffers from these drawbacks. Although it achieves a clear and unified visual language across Google's own platforms, it often lacks the dynamism needed to truly engage users. Going back to Apple, their Health app also demonstrates this effect: it features consistent graphs, shapes, and buttons, all meticulously designed according to a cohesive system. Yet, in the context of fitness and health, the app feels uninspired—missing the opportunity to create an experience that is both invigorating and motivating.

In trying to appeal to a broad audience, sometimes design systems result in interface that, while functional, ultimately fails to captivate. You could say the design lacks a soul. While larger companies may appreciate the efficiency of rolling out new applications using a standardized design, this "production line" approach is precisely what makes users see it as just another interface with slightly different content or controls. In other words, these designs become disposable and redundant.

Some may argue that granting designers more creative freedom could result in a chaotic mix of styles, undermining the coherence and consistency that design systems are intended to preserve. However, a more balanced approach is possible. By setting a foundational language—such as fonts, color schemes, langeuage, and iconography—as constants, designers could be given the flexibility to build on these foundations. This approach would prevent the rigid design constraints, encouraging more imaginative and personalized designs.

In conclusion, the dilemma faced by companies in standardizing design systems seems to have shifted toward fulfilling corporate objectives, rather than truly addressing user needs and expectations. By easing these constraints and offering designers more creative autonomy, I believe companies would be able to cultivate richer, more engaging user experiences that stand out in the crowded world of both mobile and desktop applications.